One of my FB friends said that she wondered if her brain would explode if she thought "like a Republican." In a past life, I would have thought that extreme and ridiculous. But you have to remember where we are--in a state like Oklahoma where Republicans are concerned about the negative impact of having good beer and wine sold in the grocery store (remember we already have cheap beer available in every grocery store and convenience store) but won't ban insurance companies from deciding that a women's domestic violence history constitutes a reason to deny coverage, and having among the weakest gun laws in the country. In other words, you can get a gun very easily here, but have to work to get good quality beer and if your spouse beats you, then you may not be able to purchase insurance. Yeah, we have a church on every corner, and our state GOP is nearly completely dominated by fundamentalists who believe that evolution is a lie. We have a teen birth rate in the top ten of states, but will not require sex ed, and will make contraceptive services hard to find.
Nationally, of course, the GOP cheers torture and accuses Obama of siding with the terrorists and being a socialist. Why am I supposed to respect Republicans again?
Then there is this little story from the Red state of Utah. Turns out a state senator is thinking of combining MLK day with a tribute to a gun manufacturer. I am not anti-gun (though I don't have any), but think this is borderline crazy. The senator sees the two days as "complimentary" and thinks that any critics will be "race-baiters." No recognition, I guess, that MLK was assassinated by a gun toting idiot?
10 comments:
I have heard that California and New York have "good beer". Maybe you should consider moving? You should find their politics to be more to your liking as well.
Barbara, is that a polite way of telling me to leave?
I wanted to comment on this earlier, but this is the first chance I have gotten to sit down and compose something.
First of all, I think anyone that anything coming from the Brady Campaign needs to consider the fact that they are one of the most vehement, rabid, and dishonest anti-gun groups out there. Going to them for factual information on gun violence is like looking to Sean Hannity for an assessment of the Obama administration. You may get some facts, but mostly you don't. Past Brady people have been on the record saying they support nothing less than a total civilian ban on firearms ownership. They are not about safety or preventing gun violence, at least not as a main platform.
In other words, you can get a gun very easily here
The vast majority of gun laws are federal law, which apply as equally to Oklahoma as they do to California. Contrary to popular belief, guns are among the most highly regulated legal product in this country and are difficult to legally buy. I am not familiar with Oklahoma state laws, but federal law dictates that anyone purchasing a gun from a dealer or a gun show has to be:
18 (21 for a handgun),
a resident of the state where they are buying,
have a record that is completely devoid of any felonies (including non-violent ones) and domestic violence convictions (It is important to note that this is lifetime ban),
have never been dishonorably discharged from the military,
never been adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed (this is also a lifetime ban),
and several other provisions that escape me at this time. Any sale must be accompanied by a national instant background check.
But, as I've written before, the Second Amendment simply does not guarantee unrestricted use of weapons. Here's the amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note how the second clause of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is dependent on the first clause, "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The amendment deals with select militias when it pertains to weapons.
Even if you read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as non-dependent on the first clause, it still does not specify that there should be no oversight over the registration much less the use of weapons.
(I'm well aware of the U.S. Supreme Court Heller decision. I'm unsure it solves the issue.)
I am not sure this person is well aware of the Heller decision, or any other past scholarship on the second amendment. The vast majority of scholars agree that the "individual right" component is not dependent on the other clause. In addition, the "militia", according to the US code, caselaw, and original intent, includes all able bodied citizens over the age of 16 and was not exclusive to organized militias.
I would certainly never argue that there shouldn't be any regulation, but I would say that, as with any Constitutionally recognized right, the burden of proof should be on the State to show it is needed and it should be as narrowly tailored as possible.
Steve, I knew as soon as I posted this that you would not like it. And that is fine. But I think you missed the broader point of my post. I turned on the tv the other day to hear a local news person say that a state republican was deeply concerned about gun rights in Oklahoma.
Fine. But that same republican party thought that a preexisting condition included being beaten by your spouse. Those are the priorities of the state Republican party (when they are not attacking migrant workers, mind you).
Go after the Brady group all you want. I regret posting that. But my broader point still stands.
Fair enough. I disagree with the Republicans on many things.
I guess my point is that I don't see a connection. Support for gun rights doesn't mean you automatically support the other things you mention. I would guess that some Democrats in your state are supportive of gun rights. There are some in MI, including our Gov., which has signed every pro-gun bill that has come across her desk.
I don't think you fully grasp the amount of crazy down here in the midwest/south. We still have people waving the confederate flag here. And yeah, some of those are Democrats.
And yes, I don't deny that many of the people concerned about gun rights are not supporters of the rest of the Republican agenda. But the entire Republican party is.
And my broader point is about priorities. Gun rights people in this state never fear (in actuality) that they will lose rights. But women lose rights here all the time. Certainly gays lose rights. And the state marches on toward the bottom in education and teen pregnancy. But we will have visible Christianity. And we will have our gun rights. Woohoo
True, I don't know what it is like to live down there. I certainly don't agree with all gun rights supporters on all topics. In fact, I have run into plenty that are idiots when it comes to other issues, but that is probably true with many other topics. I am pro-union, but there are some union folk that advocate things I don't like. I am pro-gay marriage, but there are things that supporters advocate (outside of the marriage issue) that I probably don't support.
I just don't think this is some kind of zero sum game where one only has a limited amount of issues they can support. It just sounds like the OK GOP is somewhat unique to that region and would probably be anti-gay no matter their stance on guns.
I support the right of gay atheists to carry canceled weapons, so they can defend themselves against rabid conservative Christians.
I support the right of gay atheists to carry canceled weapons, so they can defend themselves against rabid conservative Christians.
:)
Post a Comment